The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewTrevor Lynch Archive
Review: Fight Club
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

These are notes for a lecture on Fight Club given on October 25, 2000 in an adult education course called “Philosophy on Film.” For a fuller interpretation of Fight Club, see Jef Costello’s “Fight Club as Holy Writ.”

What’s philosophical about Fight Club? Fight Club belongs alongside Network and Pulp Fiction in an End of History film festival, because it beautifully illustrates ideas about human nature, history, and culture from Hegel and Nietzsche—especially as read through the lenses of Alexandre Kojève and Georges Bataille.

Prehistoric society is relatively egalitarian and focuses on the cycles of nature and the necessities of life. Hegel held that linear history begins with men risking death in duels over honor, which spring from the demand that one’s sense of self be recognized by others.

The struggle over honor has winners and losers. Its outcome reveals two kinds of men. The master values honor above life. The slave values life above honor. In terms of Plato’s division of the human soul into reason, spiritedness (thumos), and desire, the master is ruled by spiritedness (which is intrinsically connected with honor) whereas the slave is ruled by desire.

The struggle over honor gives rise to class structures and class struggles. The ruling class enjoys leisure, which gives rise to the whole realm of high culture, which is driven by the quest for self-knowledge.

The truth about man, though, is somewhat anticlimactic. Mankind has created art, religion, and philosophy, and endured untold suffering in uncounted wars and revolutions, only to discover that . . . we are all free and equal, which is basically how we lived before history.

When we learn the truth about ourselves, history and culture are no longer necessary. When we are all free to pursue our own aims, history and culture will be displaced by mere consumption, the satisfaction of desire, which in a sense is a return to prehistory. Thus the end of history in Hegel’s sense brings about the rise of Nietzsche’s “Last Man,” who believes that there is nothing higher than himself and his petty pleasures.

The protagonist of Fight Club, played by Edward Norton, is a man with no name. (He is called Jack in the script, but Jack is a name he adopts from a series of pamphlets about diseases.) He is Everyman. He is the Last Man. He works at a sociopathic corporation. He lives in a condo. He has no apparent religious convictions or cultural interests. He buys clothes and furniture, always with the question, “What does this say about me as a person?” He is single and appears to be celibate. He’s free, equal, and has plenty of money to buy stuff. But he feels empty inside. He can’t sleep at night, and you know how crazy that can make you.

Everyman seeks out meaning by attending support group meetings under fake names and false pretenses. He doesn’t seem to have much truck with the forms of spirituality these peddle, but he does find opportunities for genuine emotional catharsis, which help him sleep at night. Unfortunately, another faker has the same idea: Marla Singer (Helena Bonham Carter). Her presence causes our hero to freeze up.

Marla’s intrusions drive Everyman to take refuge in an all-male support group. This is significant. History begins not just with isolated men battling for honor, but with bonded male groups, Männerbünde, fighting over honor.

Unfortunately, this particular group is called Remaining Men Together. It’s for testicular cancer survivors. Emasculated men hugging each other and crying will not restart history. In fact, the group is pretty much a microcosm for everything wrong with the modern world, which would prefer that all men be emasculated, weepy huggers. But it does point to the next step Everyman needs to take.

On one of his business trips, Everyman meets Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt in his most charismatic role). Everyman is a prisoner of the modern world, but he feels above it. He is like a cow shuffling down a chute in a slaughterhouse who feels he is the master of the situation because he keeps up a constant stream of ironic smart-assery. Tyler is genuinely free of the producer-consumer system: He buys his clothes from thrift stores (at best), squats in an abandoned building, and has his own business (he manufactures and sells soap).

Everyman, however, is a Consumer in the hands of an Angry Author. And the Author dictates that Everyman be stripped of all his worldly possessions, because “The things you own, they end up owning you.” Then he must be delivered to Tyler Durden, for a new beginning. First, Everyman learns that his luggage has been seized and destroyed because it vibrated. Then, he returns home to find that his condo has been incinerated. He needs a place to stay. Fortunately, he has Tyler’s number.

Cut to Lou’s Bar, where Everyman and Tyler are drinking and bonding. At the end of the evening, Tyler asks Everyman to hit him. It is a rather shocking suggestion. Neither man has ever been in a fight. Neither man has been tested. Neither man knows how far he would go to win. Would he risk life itself for victory? If so, he is what Hegel called a master. If he is willing to accept dishonor to avoid death, he is a slave. Of course at this point, neither man is willing to risk death. Until now, they haven’t even been willing to risk a bloody nose.

After they fight, Tyler and Everyman enjoy a kind of post-coital bliss, then retire to Tyler’s place: a crumbling mansion where he squats. It is as if fighting is an initiation into a new world where bourgeois values of comfort and security no longer matter.

Tyler and Everyman have their fights in front of other men, who naturally want to join in. That’s how Fight Club is formed. Fight Club is a Männerbund. It is structured as a secret, initiatic society. It produces a change of consciousness. “Who you were in Fight Club is not who you were in the rest of your world. You weren’t alive anywhere like you were alive at Fight Club. But Fight Club only exists in the hours between when Fight Club starts and when Fight Club ends.”

Fight Club also transforms values. “After a night in Fight Club, everything else in your life gets the volume turned down. You can deal with anything. All the people who used to have power over you have less and less.” Fight Club breaks the hold that bourgeois society has on us, which springs from a willingness to endure routine forms of dishonor and degradation in exchange for comfort and security.

Not every initiation in Fight Club involves combat, but all of them involve risking death. For instance, one rainy night, Tyler lets go of the wheel of a stolen car, crashing it. When he and the rest of his party crawl out of the wreckage, he whoops, “We just had a near-life experience.” One cannot really live until one puts aside the fear of death and the desire for comfort, security, and control that are at the foundation of bourgeois society.

As Tyler puts it, “Self-improvement is masturbation. Self-destruction is the answer.” The self that must be destroyed is the bourgeois self, the rational producer-consumer. That self must be destroyed so that a higher self may be born, which is, of course, self-improvement in a deeper sense.

Tyler understands that an encounter with death forces one to take life seriously. Modern society is masterful at reducing risks and keeping death at bay. Thus it deprives people of opportunities to really come to grips with their mortality, shed illusions, and live life more seriously.

One night, Tyler demonstrates this by pulling a gun on a convenience store clerk and telling him he is going to die—unless he stops wasting his life as a convenience store clerk. It is an utterly brutal and terrifying encounter, but Tyler thinks he is doing the man a favor: “Tomorrow will be the most beautiful day of Raymond K. Hessell’s life”—because of his brush with death at the hands of a gun-toting maniac.

Tyler practices similar tough love with his own friends. One day, he kisses the back of Everyman’s hand then dumps lye on it, causing an excruciating chemical burn. Again, his motive is to force a transformative confrontation with death: “First you have to give up. First, you have to know—not fear, know—that someday, you’re gonna die. It’s only after we’ve lost everything that we’re free to do anything.”

When the ordeal is over, Tyler says “Congratulations. You’re a step closer to hitting bottom.” This is the language of Twelve Step programs. Addiction is sustained by self-deception. Hitting bottom is when the consequences of addiction are so catastrophic that one can no longer evade the reality of one’s situation. One confronts it in a moment of clarity, at which point one may embark on the road to recovery.

One of the illusions Tyler is concerned to dispel is the idea of divine providence: “You have to consider the possibility that God doesn’t like you. He never wanted you. In all probability, he hates you. This is not the worst thing that can happen . . . We don’t need him. Fuck damnation. Fuck redemption. We are God’s unwanted children. So be it!”

Tyler’s rationale for this line of attack is explained earlier, when he says “Our fathers were our models for God. And, if our fathers bailed, what does that tell us about God?” If God is just another absent father, then belief in his providence is just another excuse for not taking responsibility for one’s life and engaging in self-parenting—or creating a Männerbund. (I wonder if Tyler’s burning chemical kiss was inspired by the “box” in Frank Herbert’s Dune. If so, the aim is very different.)

Now I want to discuss two questions. Is Fight Club fascist? And: Is Fight Club gay?

Yes, Fight Club is fascist. After all, Tyler Durden makes his soap out of human fat. That’s a joke, but with that detail, the author of the original novel, Chuck Palahniuk is telling us something. Fight Club is clearly anti-liberal, anti-consumerist, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist. It is also populist, because it empowers ordinary men against the establishment. The only question is: Does Fight Club reject liberalism from the Left or from the Right?

The best way to answer that question is with another question: Does Fight Club admit women? No. Therefore, Fight Club rejects the essential premise of liberalism: human equality. Fight Club is populist, but it is not egalitarian. Fight Club is open to men of all social classes, not because it rejects hierarchy as such, but merely because it rejects the existing hierarchy and wants to create a new one, in which men who are willing to risk combat rule over those who don’t. But that’s also true of the Nazis and Fascists.

The Unabomber’s Manifesto spends a good deal of time critiquing Leftism from a loosely Nietzschean “vitalist” perspective, meaning the idea that a good society gives expression to the life force, thus any institutions that constrict it must be thrown aside. Leftists recoil in fear from such talk, because equality requires leveling and constricting, domesticating and socializing the life force. Leftism is over-socialization. Fight Club offers essentially the same critique, but it focuses specifically on masculine vitality. Leftism isn’t just over-socializing, it is also emasculating.

If Fight Club does not admit women, does that mean it is gay? The Catholic priesthood does not admit women. Does that mean it is gay? Uh-oh. There may be a point here. We can at least say that the movie plays with this question.


Fight Club is a bunch of men rolling around half naked and punching each other. Some people find that . . . suggestive. Tyler declares: “We’re a generation of men raised by women. I’m wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.” Everyman seems to be sexually jealous when Tyler hooks up with Marla. He resents Marla for intruding on his relationship with Tyler. He also clearly feels jealousy of Tyler’s affection toward Angel Face, which sends him into a psychotic rage. [Note: Chuck Palahniuk revealed that he is gay in 2004.]

But in a deeper sense, the answer is obviously no. Tyler and Everyman are both heterosexual. Beyond that there is a matter of principle: It does not make men gay to want to work or socialize with one another while excluding women. Women have a great deal of power in pre-historic and post-historic societies because they are relatively egalitarian. Women have a great deal of power over children in all societies. Thus if boys are to mature into men, at a certain point they need to separate themselves from their mothers. They need male-only spheres for that. This is much easier, of course, when they have fathers. But when fathers are absent, they can find father substitutes. One such substitute is the Männerbund. Or, in less fancy terms, the gang.

Bonded male groups are not just necessary for the healthy maturation of boys. They are what create and sustain human history and culture. Almost every important institution until quite recently was sex-segregated. Institutions probably work best that way. Feminists, of course, want to break down those barriers, and one of their techniques is to insinuate that any institution that excludes them must be somehow “gay.”

Yes, progressive women are not above exploiting “homophobia” to get their way. If they were consistently progressive, they would be saying that men should not think being gay is a stigma at all. Men should not let themselves be manipulated like this. Maybe men should demand that they be allowed into all-female spaces, so that women can absolve themselves of the suspicion of lesbianism. Or better yet, both sexes could call a truce to this childishness. But men are the ones on the retreat, so things will only turn around if they assert themselves.

Fight Club has a cell structure. Fight Clubs can and do pop up everywhere. Fight Club meets once a week and exists only between certain hours. Then Tyler started handing out homework assignments. This is the speech he makes before the first assignment:

Man, I see in Fight Club the strongest and smartest men who have ever lived. I see all this potential. And I see it squandered. God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas and waiting tables; or they’re slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don’t need. We’re the middle children of history, man, with no purpose or place. We have no Great War, no Great Depression. Our Great War is a spiritual war. Our Great Depression is our lives. We were raised by television to believe that we’d be millionaires and movie gods and rock stars—but we won’t. And we’re slowly learning that fact. And we’re very, very pissed-off.

Tyler’s homework consists mostly pranks and acts of vandalism. But they too are initiations, preparing the way for the next phase.

If the bonded male group is the origin of history, then we should expect Fight Club to go political. Thus Fight Club morphs into Project Mayhem. At that point, Tyler starts building bunkbeds, because Project Mayhem is a full-time commitment.

Project Mayhem is a cross between a goon squad and a Zen monastery. (But, then again, Zen is the religion of the samurai.) The members of Project Mayhem dress alike, submit to a charismatic leader, chant his cant like robots, and seem ecstatic at the prospect of immolating themselves for the cause. Freedom, equality, individualism, and creature comforts aren’t what they want. They want to be “space monkeys” who give their lives for the common good. As Nietzsche said, “Man does not strive for happiness; only the Englishman does that.”

The ultimate goal of Project Mayhem is to collapse industrial civilization and start history over again. Tyler envisions going back practically to the stone age:

In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You’ll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You’ll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower. And when you look down, you’ll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty carpool lane of some abandoned superhighway.

Phase one of collapsing civilization is blowing up the headquarters of the major credit card companies, erasing people’s debts. This is easy for Tyler, because if you know how to make soap, you know how to make dynamite.

We never learn what phase two is.

Indeed, near the end, Fight Club takes a psychological turn for the worse and becomes as anticlimactic as history itself. It is upsetting, because one really wants to like Tyler. But the modern media can’t convey profound anti-modernist messages without putting them in the mouths of madmen.

What is the lesson of Fight Club? The End of History in modern liberal-egalitarian consumer society is good at satisfying our desires for comfort, security, and long life. But we’re not satisfied with satisfaction. There’s more to the human soul than that. In modernity, masculine thumos is, for the most part, unemployed. In fact, it is regarded as a disturber of the peace. But idle hands do the devil’s work, and unemployed thumos, if mobilized by a charismatic leader and properly directed, can overthrow the modern world and start history over. Maybe next time, we will get it right.

• Category: Arts/Letters • Tags: Hollywood, Movies, Rightwing Cinema 
Hide 131 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Is Fight Club fascist? And: Is Fight Club gay?

    Don’t care.

    After a while, it just seems that people diving into analysis of films are trying to pretend that some of the cinematic energy may be vampired onto a page. There’s only one way to experience the movie. It only exists there.

    I love FC and Twelve Monkeys. Damned if I understand the point of rehashing them here.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
    , @Twodees Partain
  2. thordaddy says:

    First rule of “radical autonomy?”

    There is no “radical autonomy.”

  3. Max Payne says:

    Tyler’s homework consists mostly pranks and acts of vandalism.

    That’s one way of saying ‘domestic terrorism’.

    Replace making soap with cooking meth and a lot of scenes start to make more sense. Making soap is more relatable to most audiences which is why I suspect it was changed in the novel.

    The monologue Brad Pitt has by himself in a dark basement, all sweaty with dilated eyes while the frame goes out sync… soap doesn’t do that to you.

    Ah the days when terrorism (and viruses) were not things to piss your pants over. Those days are truly gone. Never again will Hollywood make a movie with the message:

    “You are not a unique and beautiful snowflake, you’re the same decaying matter as everything else”

    Nah… now everyone is a winner! Everyone is special!

  4. Is Fight Club fascist? And: Is Fight Club gay?

    Don’t care.

    It’s anarcho-gangsterist. It’s about a cult than a movement, like the Aum cult in Japan that released sarin gas.

    I love FC and Twelve Monkeys. Damned if I understand the point of rehashing them here.

    I hate both. Still, FIGHT CLUB was brilliantly directed by David Fincher, so I can at least admire the film-making. TWELVE MONKEYS is utter garbage, sci-fi horror turned into a clown circus by Gilliam the jester.

  5. My goodness is this guy off the mark. I and many others looked at the cornucopia of pleasures offered to us by a permissive, materialistic society and rejected it wholeheartedly. I guess there is a stage beyond the “last man” which Nietzsche and this writer could not envision.

    • Replies: @botazefa
  6. Icy Blast says:

    What a waste of time.

  7. 3000 words on ‘Fight Club’, 20% of which are ‘thumos.’ Am extremely not impressed. Were you going for mental masturbation, or were you just showing off your mastery of academic bullshittalk in Hey, Look at ME!!!! land?

  8. Dumbo says:

    I think the whole idea of reviewing films from a particular perspective (i.e. white nationalist, right wing, left wing, queer, religious, whatever) is a bit silly, because, if they are really good films, they tend to transcend such limitations and be more universal and deeper. So in the end it is more about fitting a particular film to your own mental shape. Like those mainstream “conservatives” who say things like, “well you know, that film about two gay cowboys who fall in love with a sheep is really conservative because blah blah blah”.

    • Replies: @sally
  9. vot tak says:

    A lesson on how to deal with right wing censorship:

    “The original “pillow talk”-scene had Marla saying “I want to have your abortion”. However this was objected to by Fox 2000 Pictures President of Production Laura Ziskin. David Fincher said he would change it on the proviso that the new line couldn’t be cut. Ziskin agreed and Fincher wrote the replacement line, “I haven’t been fucked like that since grade school”. This caused Ziskin to be even more outraged at the new line, and asked for the original line to be put back, with Fincher refusing as per their deal.”


    • Replies: @Trevor Blanc
  10. I love Fight Club. It’s one of the best films of the nineteen-nineties, an excellent decade for cinema.

    But I hate this review. I could only read half of it before I gagged on the endless summary of the movie’s plot and the tedious explanation about what it all means. I had to skim the rest.

    If you haven’t seen Fight Club, don’t read this review. It will make you want to NOT see it. And you’ll miss out a great movie.

    • Replies: @Alden
  11. I definitely need to punch someone in the face after that first paragraph.

    • Replies: @Trevor Blanc
  12. The first rule of fight club…

    • Replies: @Trevor Blanc
  13. Fight Club serves one purpuse.
    It’s a litmus test to spot closet homosexuals rationalising not have been come out.

    U can spend ten minutes listening to vox day explaining its gayness.
    Or look ten seconds at the author and see it for yourself.

    The one little excuse there is, are the masses of MRA essays on Fight Club trying to degay it.

  14. Dumbo says:

    I haven’t read the book, which is probably gayer than the film, but, you just know that the author is gay, even before you see his picture, the picture just confirms it.

    If you have to ask “Is it gay?”, then it probably is.

    About “is it fascist?”, well, there is a large subset of homosexuals who fetishize fascism. Even at the time, a large number of old-time fascists were gay. There is something about muscular men taking showers together that is, well, gay. Esparta was gay, and even Nazis started out as gay, before the purges.

    You see the same phenomenon today in people such as “Bronze Age Pervert”, who is, surprise, surprise, gay.

  15. Sean says:

    History having an consumerist and technocratic endpoint unless we turn the clock back would seen to be the message. The poster boy for Nietzsche was not some nature boy Parsifal, but Cesare Borgia, so I don’t see Nietzschean influence. Where is the genuine rivalry for Tyler to stake his life on?

  16. Emslander says:

    I tried to watch FC and realized a third of the way through it that it was gay. Whatever meaningful idea it might have been going for was lost immediately. Stopped watching. Gays are always trying to co-opt masculine traits and claim they’re just signs of gayness. Meaningless violence is like gay relations, meaningless!

    • Agree: Fuerchtegott
    • Replies: @botazefa
    , @ken
  17. VD says: • Website

    The reviewer, Trevor Lynch, is not only flat-out wrong in declaring FIGHT CLUB not gay, he almost certainly knows very well that he is wrong.

    No one who has read the book can escape the flaming homosexuality of the club that dare not speak its true name. The book begins with an gay oral sex metaphor and ends with a homosexual gang bang metaphor. In between, it provides an analogy for what it is doing to the unsuspecting reader: hiding its flaming gayness in plain sight in the same way that it describes a theater technician slipping in a frame of a slippery red penis to tower four stories over the unsuspecting heads of a movie audience.

    This subversive act serves as a markedly apt metaphor for the way in which many fans of FIGHT CLUB still remain oblivious to the fact that it is a screaming, panting, writhing ode to the custom of men having sex with other men, as well as the way that an attachment to this custom tends to supersede all other aspects of individual self-identification.

    Even if we set aside all of the author’s metaphorical signaling, it requires a truly superficial viewing of the movie to fail to note the multitude of similarities between the fight clubs gathering anonymously in dark places and the shady, quasi-illegal bathhouses where gay men have gathered for decades.

    “Because I’m Tyler Durden and you can kiss my ass, I register to fight every guy in the club that night. Fifty fights. One fight at a time. No shoes. No shirts”

    But no shortage of “service.” By this point, it should be obvious that he’s not talking about “fighting” every guy in the club. In the end, the movie is little more than a gay man’s fantasy that asks the question: “how great would it be if Brad Pitt was super gay?”

  18. Jake says:

    Fight Club is Queer film based on Queer fiction. That so many ‘alt-right’ types who are about as anti-Christendom as is the average Antifa rioter promote Fight Club ought not be any surprise. The Nazi Pasty was founded in a gay bar. The original Nazi street thugs, the SA (Brownshirts) were led by Ernst Rohm, who was a promiscuous queer and pederast, almost certainly an S&M pederast.

    Trevor Lynch is either not very bright, or he is a plant (paid by, say, the ADL or SPLC) to lead decent people astray, or he is himself the kind of person easily clutched by the freaks such as Ernst Rohm, whose queer Nazi self would have loved the film and wanted a sequel with under age boys fighting in the nude.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @Priss Factor
  19. I like this review and I very much enjoy the film and the many subtle treats strewn throughout the work. You may have offended the connoisseurs and various cranks and scolds here, but hey; ya can’t please everybody. Thanks for this reminder of an important cultural film.

  20. Corvinus says:

    Vox just reacted about this review in a blog post in an effort to avoid the simple truth–his parlaying Alt Right sentiment into a money grab. It is patently obvious he is exploiting his audience through Jew precision exploitation, which is an undercurrent in Fight Club. So rather than address the actual substance of Lynch’s review, Vox doubles down on his own brand of virtue signaling. Remember, he created an entirely new category on the “socio-sexual hierarchy” (sigma) as cover for his own non-masculine tendencies, and his own “Fight Club” inner circle fiercely fight to the death anyone who labels them a “gamma” even their own physical and personality traits clearly fit the description.

    • Disagree: Fuerchtegott
  21. gay troll says:

    Imagine Tyler Durden as the alter ego of Michael Snyder and you get ZeroHedge. Also all the members of Fight Club moonlight as Zionist spooks. Also instead of blowing up banks they now want to blow up satanic Communists. Twitter reinstated ZeroHedge, will ZeroHedge reinstate gay troll? No, they are a bunch of hypocritical chickenshits carrying water for the regime change gang.

  22. If a new car built by my company leaves Chicago traveling west at 60 miles per hour, and the rear differential locks up, and the car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside, does my company initiate a recall? You take the population of vehicles in the field (A) and multiple it by the probable rate of failure (B), then multiply the result by the average cost of an out-of-court settlement (C). A times B times C equals X. This is what it will cost if we don’t initiate a recall. If X is greater than the cost of a recall, we recall the cars and no one gets hurt. If X is less than the cost of a recall, then we don’t recall.

    Also Pahlinuk told Rogan his money manager stole all his money.

  23. Brick says:

    Fight Club (the book) is gayer than a sack of dildoes.

    From the narrator talking about how strangers being honest gives him a “big rubbery one,” to him comparing Tyler’s penis to a cocktail shrimp, Fight Club is wall-to-wall homophilia.

  24. Personally I think Fight Club is more interesting by virtue of the fact that it exists and is well-liked, than for its actual quality as a movie. I didn’t read the book and didn’t like the movie that much, but that is just a matter of somebody’s taste, and isn’t important. It’s still an artifact, and its popularity maybe tells us about ourselves. Is the movie gay, or fascist? Or fascistically gay? Well it uses gay and fascist themes and imagery, but it doesn’t really say anything very original or interesting about gayness or fascism. You get the sense that they just added a few more layers in the hopes that it would gel. And besides, how could a movie about sweaty shirtless young men beating each other up ignore those themes?

    What really happens is that the movie chickens out of its main theme, by refusing to develop it, and instead adds a bunch of other new ones just to thicken the stew. We start out with testicular cancer and a sort of nebbishy male character with a nowhere life: so, a crisis of masculinity. He meets a charismatic man, and solves his masculinity issues by creating Fight Club. Okay, that is a premise. What is the rest of that story?

    In order to really explore that premise and say something insightful about it, the movie would have had to stay a small-scale, low budget film that stayed at street level, so to speak, and just worked out the story of Fight Club and what it does to the main guy. But it’s a big-budget movie with big stars, so it has to escalate. So instead of telling an interesting story about some men with a problem, it becomes a zany whirlwind about capitalism and terrorism and split personalities. It doesn’t say anything useful about any of these, but Fincher kind of figures that if he just keeps shuffling the cards fast enough, you’ll go home thinking you saw something Important.

    If it had stayed small and developed the nerve to take its own premise seriously, it could have been a tight little character study like “Whiplash” — not a huge hit, but a genuinely good film that is about one thing, not twenty things. Instead Fight Club is a hall of mirrors. The fact that it was made right on the eve of 9/11, at a time of peak ennui, same time as The Matrix, is what gives it impact.


    • Agree: Dumbo
    • Replies: @Morton's toes
  25. Ray P says:

    There is irony in Vox Day bearing resemblance to Truman Capote:

    and this guy with the white pussy:

  26. fish says:

    Pretty sure I’m not gay….anyway not the last time I checked…….still liked the movie!

  27. Mankind has created… religion

    Man did not create religion. Religion means bond with God and it was God who established religion and , thus, there has ever only been one religion- The religion of Jesus Christ.

    In the Old Testament the Jews were the object of a progressive revelation that, over time, revealed the one they were waiting for, the Messias, whereas in The New Testament Jesus is the revelation.

    It is an evil culture which imagines that the warrior is the exemplary man.

    Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, is the exemplary man. He is the Way. He is the Truth. He is the Life and Hollywood has nothing to do with Him.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    , @Anonymous
  28. Ray P says:

    The USMC concurs with Vox Day on the gun metaphor. Take it away Gunney!

  29. @Fuerchtegott

    Vox Day. The Leader of Arian (Arius) nation

    A man who dresses like a grub for his public appearances, who thinks that Jesus is not God, and whose profession is creating video games is the model for men who have lost souls.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
    , @VD
  30. Z-man says:

    I wanted to make a comment about Quentin Tarantino ànd his Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
    When I saw Brad Pitt’s picture and early mention of Pulp Fiction I figured this would be a good a place as any to do so.
    I thoroughly enjoyed Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, great movie. But I liked The Nice Guys with Crowe and Gosling even better.
    But one scene irked me in Tarantino’s movie. The Brad Pitt character is fixing DiCaprio’s character’s roof antenna. It’s a star showcase for Pitt’s great physique for sure, but ‘lovingly’ photographed by that disgustingly queer Tarantino.
    Jewllywood has promoted this queer a lot more than the makers of The Nice Guys or even the makers of the movie being reviewed above.

    • Replies: @Ray P
  31. anonymous[251] • Disclaimer says:

    American popular culture, society is obviously a mess. Don’t see much left to “Conserve”.

    This type of Nihilistic criminal and spiritual anarchy overwhelmed Christian Europe 100 years ago – the scenes we see now in Chicago, Richmond VA, London/Londonstan England of mobs of BLM, Antifa tearing down British national heroes – they happened 100 years ago in St. Petersburg Russia and Munich Bavaria Germany. After some really horrible anarchy some tough guys like Hitler and Stalin came to power, now the likes of tough guys Vladimir Putin and Victor Orban have come to power in Central and Eastern Europe.

    Don’t expect a lot of feel good movies come out of Hollywood these days. I’m sort of up for challenging the Islamists to do something about Hollywood elites – maybe put the word out that some Yid is producing a big blockbuster movie depicting the Islamic prophet as a homo prostitute.

  32. anonymous[251] • Disclaimer says:

    Ok, but Ernst Rohm and his SA Brownshirts successfully contested the streets against THE worst Antifi, Communist mobs in places like Red Berlin and Munich Bavaria. The Communists actually came to power in Munich Bavaria and the Social Democrat government in Berlin called in Freecorp Volunteers led by the likes of Ernst Rohm to take down the Communists which they did.

    Conservatives in Germany then as they are now in our DisUnited States of America are pretty much useless in contesting the streets with the worst Antifa Communist, now BLM mobs.

    The Canadian television miniseries – “Hitler the Rise of Evil” did a rather fair, and good job of depicting the struggles in Germany after the World War I surrender. The actor Robert Carlysle (The Full Monty) did an excellent job of portraying Hitler in Weimar Republic Germany.

    I highly recommend this movie to honest history buffs.

    Jaye Left Behind in Chicago

    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @Jake
    , @Achmed E. Newman
  33. Trinity says:

    I watched FC when it came out and I have only paid to see a few movies in a theater since then. Disappointing shit movie IMO. Haven’t been to a movie theater since 2007 and I don’t intend on going anytime soon, wasn’t going whether we had a virus or not. Not about to waste one cent on Jewish shit ever again. Honestly, I don’t think the Shlomos in Hellywood have put out a watchable movie this century yet, it is all crap. Even the mid 90’s were shit. A few movies in the early 90’s like, “Silence Of The Lambs,” “Goodfellas” and the remake of “Cape Fear” were decent but we are talking nearly 30 years ago. Anyone who keeps buying this trash on Netflix, or even watching it on HBO, Cinemax, Showtime or other channels are totally mummified corpses who have fallen for thinking Jewish shit entertainment is actually well produced movies. Hell, they have no creativity or originality, even back in the day, most movies were based on books already written, and now we have endless comic books movie sequels o revising and remaking movies from previous decades. Why make these no talent bums rich?


  34. Ray P says:

    You mean Quentin isn’t concerned with to whom the foot belongs? Fixing Leonardo’s antenna? I’ll bet that wasn’t all he was ‘fixing’. Perhaps Vox Day can wax on about diCaprio’s boy wonder years. His career has been like the reserve River Phoenix.

  35. I think holding the soap bar in the poster is a clue! It’s the gayest movie I had seen at the time and was obvious to me as a teenager. The whole thing is just gross. I think the film appeals to beta guys who don’t know how to be men, are not good athletes, and are subconsciously looking for daddy. “We are a generation raised by women.” I wasn’t, but most gay men were, or at least had a troubled relationship to their father, ergo, let me look for dad in the…bath houses with the soap!

  36. What would be the purpose of destroying the society, albeit with its problematic structure, to recreate a new one without understanding or knowing the reason of our very existence?

  37. Gaunt says:

    The replies to this highly accurate and perceptive write up make me think it’s been shared on an antifa subreddit
    Snarky beta male passive aggression proving it’s contents to be true
    Infantile and feminine minds will always project homosexuality onto this movie and its ideas in a midwitted attempt to devalue them.

    • Agree: botazefa
    • Replies: @Jake
  38. Pheasant says:

    Vox day looks like a thumb.

  39. @VD

    No one who has read the book can escape the flaming homosexuality of the club that dare not speak its true name. The book begins with an gay oral sex metaphor and ends with a homosexual gang bang metaphor.

    Right, something can be ‘gay’ in tone and subtext even if not outwardly so. The book, written by a closet-homo, is probably ‘gay’, but I don’t think the movie is, at least necessarily. I watched it twice when it came out, and I didn’t find it ‘gay’. Maybe if Pasolini or Derek Jarman had directed, it would have been different. SEBASTIANE is certainly ‘gay’.

    I don’t know if Zach Snyder is a homo, but 300 had some machomo elements.

    And BEAU TRAVAIL will appeal to homos.

    Far more interesting film on dynamics of male culture and homosexuality is GOHATTO(or TABOO) by Nagisa Oshima.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
  40. botazefa says:
    @Bogus Pogus

    I and many others looked at the cornucopia of pleasures offered to us by a permissive, materialistic society and rejected it wholeheartedly.

    You don’t consider internet commentary to be materialistic?

  41. @vot tak

    Excellent! Thanks for this delightful peak behind the curtain. Great comeuppance for a meddling SJW.

    • Replies: @vot tak
  42. @Marshall Lentini

    There is help for you. Find it.

    • Replies: @Marshall Lentini
  43. @Robert Paulson

    The second rule of Fight Club.

  44. botazefa says:

    I tried to watch FC and realized a third of the way through it that it was gay

    I’ve watched it dozens of times and it never occurred to me that it is some sort of gay propaganda. Same with the book.

    Maybe we tend to see what we want to see. I’m not saying you are a closeted gay for thinking FC is gay, but what about it is gay? Bloody fighting? Sexing Marla? Men crying?

    I love FC for how masculine it is.

    Just because the author is gay doesn’t mean he is a faggoty little gaylord

    • Replies: @Jake
    , @Emslander
    , @Priss Factor
  45. S says:

    In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You’ll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life.

    Déjà vu.

    FC was not a bad movie though.

  46. @Jake

    Fight Club is Queer film based on Queer fiction. That so many ‘alt-right’ types who are about as anti-Christendom as is the average Antifa rioter promote Fight Club ought not be any surprise.

    This gets complicated. Many conservatives see Christendom as fundamental to Western Civilization, but others see Christianity as having originated from Jews — some might say Jewish radical subversives — whose moral puritanism did great harm to the pluralist traditions of the West. Some might look to pagan Greece as representative of the true spirit of the West. Instead of one grim moralistic control-freak God, the many gods who represent the full range of human habits, thoughts, and expressions. Both Apollo and Dionysus, both Artemis and Athena. Some might argue that Christianity, an anti-idol-ic credo that derived from Semitic culture, threw a veil over the rich and colorful cultures of the pagan West.
    There is some truth to that.

    On the other hand, the advantage of Jewish and Christian value system is continuity and longevity. Pagan cultures emphasize victory and power. Winners win, losers lose. A zero-sum game. In contrast, Jews found a way to keep their pride, meaning, and value even in defeat. As their emphasis was on their relation to God, it didn’t matter if they lost in the World of Man. God was still on their side IF they remained faithful and righteous. And the example of Jesus who was defeated in body but victorious in spirit set the template for the West. It imbued the West with the sense that, even in defeat, the faith could be kept alive and provide fuel once again for the rise of civilization. Romans were defeated in war but its new faith, Christianity, did come to spread and spiritually conquer the West.

    Among all the pagan cultures, is it an accident that only Jews survived intact as a living people and culture over the millennia? Was it a mere accident that the West had a continuous civilization since the coming of Christianity? The Arabs also had a continuous culture since the rise of Islam. Both Christianity and Islam derive from Judaism that mastered the art of surviving and preserving the pride of a people/culture despite defeat. Most pagan cultures emphasized martial pride. So, if they lost, they lost all pride. But Jews emphasized moral and spiritual pride, qualities that could not only survive defeat but be strengthened by it.

    Now, some will argue that civilizations should die and new ones should be allowed to rise from the ashes. John Boorman has this view. In ZARDOZ, the Eternals found a way to live forever, but they’ve interrupted the cleansing and revitalizing cycles of birth and death. In EXCALIBUR, it’s tragic that the Arthurian world falls but it must for a new order to rise. Excalibur must be lost for it to be found again. According to paganist Henry Williamson, Jews represent the mummification of culture. In their longevity, they carry the dead weight of history.

    One clear advantage of the Jews was the Covenant that imbued every Jew with the sense that he is special, one of the Chosen. So, even though Jews did have rulers and ruled, they felt closer as one people. So, there was less of a slave mentality among them. In contrast, pagan folks were about masters and slaves, rulers and subjects. Main identity among Jews was as the Chosen; it was more about blood than class. Main identity among the pagans was ‘ruler’ or ‘subject/slave’; it was more about class than blood. This is why Jews had a better chance of cultural survival. Even when Jewish elites were defeated or killed, the surviving Jews still had self-meaning as the Chosen, the special people, the beloved of God. In contrast, as the main identity of most pagans was ‘slave’ or ‘subject’, if their rulers were defeated or vanquished, they had no real identity left… and they often switched loyalties to the new dominant power. The tragedy of National Socialism was that it came up with something like a Germanic covenant of blood and soil that bound all Germans together as one people, one race. But in waging wars and violating blood-and-soil principles of other peoples, Germans brought ruin upon themselves.

    One thing about pagan cultures is the emphasis on victory and power tends to lead to hubris, arrogance, complacency, and decadence. It happened to the Persians, Spartans, Romans, etc.
    While Jews and Christians were tempted by decadence as well, their strong moralism and reminder of the importance of humility(mistaken as ‘slave morality’) made them more mindful of the dangers of arrogance, hubris, and complacency. Such moralism had a dampening effect on full-on creativity and expressiveness(especially of homos), but the salutary result was greater stability. Too much moralism suppresses creativity(like in the Middle Ages), but too much creativity leads to decadence(as we see with post-modernism and globo-homo fruitery). The Renaissance was a great moment for, at least for a while, it found a way to balance the two modes.

    As for the FIGHT CLUB, it is not fascist. Fascism is about power as dignity, pride, and meaning. Even though Mussolini was an egotistical fool and Hitler was a pathological megalomaniac who led their movements down the path to destruction, the core purpose of fascism was to create a revolutionary order without breaking with the richness of culture and heritage. The genie of modernity could not be put back in the bottle, but capitalist materialism was too soulless, liberalism was too atomizing, and communism was too radical and destructive. Fascism sought to balance the elements. It was holistic. As such, fascism couldn’t be merely about males. It has to be about men and women, about families and children. Men may lead, but women are totally important to fascism. Also, as fascism’s purpose is to revere tradition/heritage while also accepting progress with technology and modernity, it calls for serious and responsible people. Family formation and security are key to success of fascism.

    But what is FIGHT CLUB about? There’s a lot of kvetching about soulless modernity but what it offers is total lunacy, mindless destruction, nihilism, gangsterism.
    While fascism was a good idea that went wrong in the hands of bad men, FIGHT CLUB ideas are terrible from the start. It’s fratboy antics presented as ‘philosophy’. The mental cases in the movie are just more pretentious versions of the morons in ANIMAL HOUSE, STRIPES, or OLD SCHOOL. The movie might as well be called ‘food fight club’. It’s all about arrested development. Solution to modern alienation is not some male club but family, humanism, and nationalism.

    • Replies: @Robjil
    , @vot tak
  47. Jake says:


    You either are stupid as a stone when it comes to queer or else hoping some more naive fools get sucked in.

    Fight Club is a queer story written by a queer to have the S&M side of queer seem very manly.

  48. Jake says:

    No, he is an S&M queer Butch.

    In other words, Chuck Palahniuk is queer just like Nazi Brownshirt pederast Ernst Rohm was queer.

    The defenses of Fight Club and this review show me again how queer the leadership of much of the ‘alt-right’ is.

    • Replies: @botazefa
  49. @Mick Jagger gathers no Mosque

    Man did not create religion.

    Religion is speculation that became dogma without hard evidence.

    Hindus meditated about deeper reality and speculated as to the workings of the cosmos and the forces behind them. These intuitions and imaginations became, over time, holy dogma to be accepted on faith.

    Intuitions need not become the stuff of faith. Greeks intuited the existence of ‘atoms’ without turning the speculation into basis for religion. Still, there was little distinction between astrology and astronomy among many Greeks.

    Before faith, there is speculation and the dogmatization of the visions drawn from meditation/illumination.

    But later, with modern science, speculation could be proven valid or invalid with accurate tools.

  50. Dumbo says:
    @Mick Jagger gathers no Mosque

    who thinks that Jesus is not God

    Does he? Anyway, I don’t think he can be considered a serious theologian.

    I don’t like him so much because of his attitude, he seems to have a narcissistic personality, and never understood this constant “gamma” obsession, nor his obsession with Trump. But every now and then he comes up with something interesting.

  51. Dumbo says:
    @Priss Factor

    Fincher (I think) is not gay, so, I think the film is not “in your face” gay as the book, or as it could be with a flaming gay director showing close ups of crotches and abs. But the themes are there.

    Now, I agree with Germ Theory’s review. Maybe the film is not “gay”, but it’s confusing, and by the end it is not even clear what it is trying to say.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  52. Emslander says:

    You don’t have to be secret gay, closeted gay, subconsciously gay or any of those things to be able to identify the gayness in modern culture. It helps to be an old guy like me and like Elaine’s father in Seinfeld, who thinks nearly everything is gay, but gay has been so over-explained and over-psychologized that the average person knows far more than he’d like to know about it.

    FC is about distorted masculinity. That seemed far enough into the matter for me.

    • Replies: @botazefa
    , @schnellandine
  53. Robjil says:
    @Priss Factor

    Judaism may have had good survival techniques for the past few thousand years. It has risen to the top in all important things. What is it doing now with its having the top place on our planet? It is not doing anything good to our planet.The game has to end.

    We are at the pinnacle of Judaism as a top culture. How does it keep its strength at the top? It’s “strength” now is that one can’t talk about it or what it does. It is anti- Jewish or S… to do so. One can even go to jail for questioning Jewish power or the big 6, the gigantic Jewish protection shield.

    All those cultures who are not here anymore were good cultures. They allowed themselves to be open to other cultures and reformed themselves. Humanity grows by curiosity.

    Humanity goes down the evolutionary scale as a species by stifling freedom of speech and inquiry. Jewish power if it wants to remain at top, it has to reform itself. It has to allow freedom of inquiry and curiosity to return to our planet.

  54. Corvinus says:

    You are choosing to see something that is not there merely because the author of the book is gay, which offends your “Christian” sensibilities. The irony drips here, given your undying affection toward that pedophile Milo whom you publish. But there no shortage of “service” there, mind you. Anyhow, note you conveniently neglected to address the substance of this review. Rather, you peddle a false premise from one of your own past writings. The fact of the matter is Trevor’s piece has definitively outed your own marketing of quasi-masculinity, and as a result are reacting with feminine indignation.

  55. VD says:
    @Mick Jagger gathers no Mosque

    You’re lying. There is literally no truth in you. I am not, and I have never been, an Arian.

    I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost.

    And I also believe that the movie FIGHT CLUB is gay, in a gay sauce, served with a sprig of gay.

  56. Boring boring boring boring. Now I know what’s wrong with modern movies. You people. You like crummy movies.

  57. botazefa says:

    FC is about distorted masculinity. That seemed far enough into the matter for me.

    Well said.

    Serenity now!

  58. @Dumbo

    Now, I agree with Germ Theory’s review. Maybe the film is not “gay”, but it’s confusing, and by the end it is not even clear what it is trying to say.

    It’s Chay, or chad-gay.

  59. @botazefa

    I love FC for how masculine it is.
    Just because the author is gay doesn’t mean he is a faggoty little gaylord

    Homos can be obsessed with masculinity and machismo for two reasons.

    1. Tinkerbells, though effeminate, could be attracted to big strong men. Just like women love big tough men, so do tinkerbells.

    2. Some homos are tough and strong, and because homos tend to be more vain/narcissistic, some of them go to extreme lengths to perfect their bodies. Many weight-lifters are homo.

    Mishima was both. He began as an effete tinkerbell, but when someone remarked how ‘soft’ he was, he felt ashamed and decided to lift weights and beef up.

    Pasolini, though a man of letters, hung around tough street types all his life. And he was sure into ‘rough trade’.

    My problem with FIGHT CLUB is it makes no sense whatsoever. The ONLY way this story could make sense is having the whole thing(or most of it) taking place inside a mad man’s mind or at least the mind of a Walter Mitty type.

    Are we supposed to believe that the Norton character created an alter ego, and through his sheer nuttery managed to form not only a private army but an entire national network of warriors?

    Just think about it. If you’re walking down the street and come upon some guy talking to himself and then fighting with himself — punching himself in the face and the like — in a parking lot, would you look up to him as some kind of leader or master? Well, maybe in a loony bin(like with Randall McMurphy who was surrounded by total losers), but are we to believe that normal, sane, and healthy men were drawn to some yuppie nut with split personality? Are we to believe the doppelganger led to the rise of doppel-gangbangers? It’d be like Norman Bates leading an army of men.

    Though Shyamalan’s SPLIT is far from perfect, it makes more sense — though there are TOO MANY personalities in the story — because the followers are all within the same person. The weaker personalities follow the stronger personality within the lead character, the nut. But because he’s so crazy, he cannot win over sane normal people. But we are to believe that the split-personality nut in FIGHT CLUB could gain the trust of so many people.

    Though IDENTITY is a trashy movie, it’s far more fun than FIGHT CLUB as exercise in pop psychology of split personality. WARD is pretty fun split-personality movie too.

    • Replies: @Ray P
    , @Fuerchtegott
    , @botazefa
  60. @Emslander

    For example, one could be taken to an ER with a fusilli statue up his ass and not be in the least bit gay. Million-to-one shot, but could happen.

    On the other hand, putting that in a TV show, according to half the millimeter-wave gaydar operators here… that would be gay.

  61. schrub says:

    Fight Club: Hollywood discovers the Weimar Republic

  62. Ray P says:
    @Priss Factor

    I believe you said up-the-thread:

    Hitler was a pathological megalomaniac

    Who had quite a large following.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  63. sally says:

    I agree, silly; review best if word of mouth experience promotes the film. But subject matter that interest the masses is the issue. What film brings to the masses, is subject matter propaganda.. its objective is to control the narrative about the subject matter.. to establish a culture as support for the narrative that is being controlled.
    Almost never do the reviewers reveal the underlying intentions, because my experience they will not be reviewers long if they do. .

  64. @Ray P

    Who had quite a large following.

    And he was a great orator. He was pathological but not cuckoo bananas mad.

    He didn’t win over the masses by punching himself and acting like Charlie Chaplin. He did it by making fiery speeches.

  65. Dingo jay b says: • Website

    Is the fight club believeable!! The two main stars brad pout and the other left wing clown look more like two hair dressers fighting than hardened ring foes.

  66. Anonymous[208] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mick Jagger gathers no Mosque

    The OT says jews are evil and that the Lord has always hated them and will always hate them. Jews are the descendants of Edomites and Canaanites, not Israelites.

    • Replies: @Jake
  67. @Priss Factor

    Well, when you see the fighting himself like a nut as masturbating behind a bar it begins to make more sense, doesn’t it?

    • Replies: @Ray P
  68. @Trevor Blanc

    You’re totally right – and if no one here has actually tried bare-knuckle fighting, with a friend maybe, I encourage it. As it was said in an even better movie, “There’s nothing more life-affirming than getting the shit kicked out of you.” But be prepared to be disappointed: incredibly few men have the balls for a good-natured fight.

    And that’s fundamentally what’s off about the review and all the responses. Forget about all your imaginary layers for just a moment: this is a movie about guys finding salvation from the tedium of modern life by beating each other up. And it really is like that. You walk away feeling tougher, a bit taller, abler to handle the petty bullshit of dealing with other people.

    That, finally, is why the film goes so wrong, as Germ mentions – it should have stuck with the basic premise instead of veering off into “Project Mayhem” and so on. And that’s the author’s fault, of course. The book’s ending is more down-to-earth, if not believable. But hey, it’s a book.

  69. Ray P says:

    Self-abuse as it is sometimes called.

  70. @obwandiyag

    Can’t you ever say anything nice?

  71. You’re totally right – and if no one here has actually tried bare-knuckle fighting, with a friend maybe, I encourage it.

    Three problems with punching heads.

    1. Fewer brain cells

    2. Fewer teeth

    3. Eye damage

    Unless you wanna fight as a pro, do NOT go around punching each other. Humans are special for their brains, not thug behavior.

  72. @Priss Factor

    Ill have to go with Lactantius and Augustine and what they taught about the definition of religion.

    Let since use the scientific method to rove scenes is the superior form of gaining knowledge versus Divine Revelation.

    It can’t.

    Science used to be subservient to Theology but since it successfully sued for divorce and began to fornicate with the putative enlightenment it produced uncountable numerous of little bastards that us faithful are expected to adopt and support.

    If you think Hinduism is remotely comparable to Christianity you are a sad case…

  73. @VD


    You claim that Jesus is not God. That makes you an Arian

    You deny the trinity too but you wear really neat T shirts, so that’s cool

    Now, I could go and track down your lunatic claim that Jesus is not God but I expect you to be a man and confess your heresy

  74. OK, I had always wanted to find out more of what this movie was supposed to be about. I am glad to have read this review by Mr. Lynch (seen the name and reviews before, but it’s not my thing normally).

    That said, there is my Peak Stupidity review, written after I’d watched the movie for the 2nd time, still not at all clear on WTF was going on – Movie Review – “Fight Club” still sucks.

    I hope the title of that review will not spoil your reading of said review. I feel I should at least give you the rules of Fight Club:

    Yeah, about the Rules of Fight Club again:

    1) You do not talk about how bad the movie sucks!
    2) You do not talk about how bad the movie sucks, even the 2nd time.
    3) When someone runs out of popcorn, or has to pee, Fight Club is over.
    4) You do not pay more than 25 cents for a cheap China-ripped DVD.
    5) If this is your 1st night at the theater where Fight Club is playing, you go next door to see Cool Hand Luke or Smokey and the Bandit for a dollar fifty.
    6) “Teens”, please, no brawling in the theater.

  75. Jake says:

    You do not rightly, and long term cannot successfully, oppose the horrors of Marxism with another socialist m0vement that is even more queer at its formation and almost as atheist, and almost equally indifferent to the lives of decent citizens.

    The descendants of the peoples of Christendom will be tossed from one revolutionary horror to another until they repent of Modern revolution against Christ and Christendom and work to rebuild Christendom.

  76. Jake says:

    Jews are the descendants of the southern kingdom of Judah (as opposed to the northern kingdom of Israel/Samaria). Judah’s capital was Jerusalem, which means it had the Temple.

    Jews become perverse Hebrews following the Babylonian Exile, when their religion becomes the world’s first ‘racist’ religion. No later than 400 BC, they began developing a theology of salvation by blood, by genes. That led immediately to them seeing all non-Jews as inferior people who are damned by their blood, their genes. That led to them declaring the Jewish Race to be God on earth.

    That is why Jesus the Christ called them sons of Satan – perverted theology.

    This is a religious war.

  77. @VD

    On you blog you claimed that Jesus did not know the time for the end of the world and you said that is because he was not God.

    Be a man and admit it.

    Don’t make me chase down your crummy quote.

    As I recall your legion of heretics also denied the trinity in the com box they day

  78. FvS says:

    There sure are a bunch of soyboys in this comment section. They associate masculinity and male fraternity with homosexuality because they themselves are feminine and have no friends. One big cope.

  79. As Nietzsche said, “Man does not strive for happiness; only the Englishman does that.”

    Ha !! Now that’s hilarious !

    • Replies: @Poco
  80. Jon Orton says:

    Hoist, as you invariably are, by your own petard.

    You’ve either watched the film, in which case welcome to the club, or you haven’t. In which case you’ve joined the ranks of those that opine about things they have no knowledge of.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
  81. @anonymous

    Thank you for pointing out this 2-part series, #251. I enjoy history, and I’ll take you for your word that it’s pretty fair. I’ll likely watch the 1st one tonight.

  82. @Jake

    No, it’s not a “religious” war in that sense. You are stuck on that. What we’re seeing worldwide is a war on White people.


    • Disagree: Corvinus
    • Replies: @botazefa
  83. @schnellandine

    Agreed, and Lynch seems to have been too busy analyzing the film instead of watching it to have noticed that Tyler is actually Jack. Tyler and Jack are the two personalities of a guy who has what shrinks call MPD.

    I liked FC and The 12 Monkeys. FC is a case of a film bringing order to a novel that was too muddled to enjoy.

  84. Pheasant says:

    You do realise that Trevor Lynch is Greg Johnson right?

    And also I thought you didnt like the Unz comment section and thought most commenters here were worthless.

    Isnt this a little bit beneath you?

    Wrestling with all the gammas?

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  85. @Pheasant

    You do realise that Trevor Lynch is Greg Johnson right?

    No, Trevor Lynch is to Greg Johnson what Tyler Durden is to Jack.

    • Replies: @Ray P
  86. vot tak says:
    @Trevor Blanc

    Cheers. On the dvd there is a short video on the making of the film where that attempted censorship was described by the director. In my memory he discribed it a bit differently. After the dialog change, that didn’t quite work out the way they wanted, the studio execs. didn’t try to censor the material again. The reason they wanted to cut the “abortion reference” was the rightwingers didn’t want to offend fellow rightwingers. Leftwingers could care less about such a reference.

    I actually saw the film first time when a relative and I
    were selecting a film rental to watch. She liked sports and selected it. I figured it was another boring sports polemic. It turned out to be a film neither of us expected. She ended up disappointed and confused while I laughed all the way through the film and thoroughly enjoyed it.

    The review article here was a disappointment. The author seemed more interested in describing his own biases and imaginings than the film itself.

    Those who have not seen the film, check it out. It’s a well done film. Something rather rare for a pindo film. And don’t obsess about the gay undertones, these are no more prevalent than in a john wayne film, or most any american film that concentrates mostly on male characters. The gay message is a helluva lot less than in the usual rocky/rambo/golan globus closeted extravaganzas, and the film doesn’t insult one’s intelligence like the usual hollywood fare. 😀

  87. Footman says:

    To quote Fight Club’s PSA, “Did you know that urine is sterile? That’s right. You can drink it.”

    Very, very gay.

  88. It can be both fascist and gay. Even if the author is gay and sees the fight club as homo-erotic, he can reaffirm masculine themes about the tragedy of lost masculinity in the modern world. Gays have a weak masculine identity but also a fascination and yearning for it (due to negative childhood experiences of peer rejection, a distant father, and an overbearing mother). That is the tragedy of the gay dating scene–it’s “10,000 bottoms looking for a top.”

    So yeah, it’s both fascist and gay.

  89. ken says:

    Gay relations are meaningless violence.

  90. vot tak says:

    “Marla, look at me. I’m really ok. Trust me, everything is going to be fine. You met me in a very strange time in my life.”

    Now that is how to end a film. Pure class. 😀

    • Agree: botazefa
  91. @The Germ Theory of Disease

    Fight Club the movie had the exact same problem as any Neil Stephenson novel–brilliant set up and suxified ending. The exact moment the movie went off the rails was the chant his name was robert paulson over meatloaf’s character’s corpse.

    I never read the book. Presumably it didn’t have that problem as most competent writers have no problem finishing off a brilliant set up. The part that Stephenson does so well is actually far more difficult than the part he can’t (or can’t be bothered to) do.

    Since most of us liked the Carter character by far the most I don’t know how you can say the movie is gay.

  92. Prehistoric tribal societies were free and egalitarian? Really? Even today tribal people are prisoners of the tribe’s customs, trapped from birth in a hierarchy, condemned to follow the tribal line in everything no matter what their personal thoughts are. It’s more than obvious that the author of this article has never met a tribal person in his life.

    As for people fighting each other to, apparently, sock it to the man, that’s about as useful as gladiators fighting in the Colosseum to bring down the Caesars of Rome.

  93. vot tak says:
    @Priss Factor

    “While fascism was a good idea that went wrong in the hands of bad men”

    Now that is gay. 😀

  94. @Morton's toes

    Not that it matters, because my thoughts about this bumbling movie are kind of trivial, but I didn’t really say the movie “is gay”. I said it uses gay motifs, which is sort of unavoidable given the subject, but because it says nothing useful about gayness (it says nothing useful at all, really), it’s sort of pointless to call it a “gay movie”.

    It’s a little like saying a movie about a karate dojo is really “about” foot fetishism, simply because karate students don’t wear shoes.

    I never really liked Helena Carter in anything… she’s got some talent, but has no screen presence. And David Fincher’s endlessly dark grainy color palettes grate on one’s nerves. I think maybe the best movie he ever made was that Madonna music video that is a parody of Metropolis. At least she slinks around on all fours and slurps milk out of a bowl like a cat, which is more entertaining to watch than Brad Pitt and Ed Norton hitting each other for no good reason. (Well actually, any reason to hit Ed Norton is a good reason, but you know what I mean…)

    • Replies: @schnellandine
  95. The First Rule of Fight Club is to never try to analyse Fight Club. It is something to be lived, not studied.

  96. @VD

    Dear Mr. Beale. You are the leader of The Arian Nation (Homophone humor) because in your repudiation of The Holy Trinity, you sourced a lamentable lunatic who thought Saint Athanasius wrong and the heretic Arius right, and you obviously agree with that heretic.

    The first Pope issued a warning that you have ignored and you have made a shipwreck of your faith

    2 Peter 3: 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction

    Dom Orchard’s 1953 “A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture,” observes: It is the teaching of the Church that the Old Testament Scriptures were transferred to her ownership by Christ himself in view of her position as the new “Israel of God” and the heir of the OT promises; and that the New Testament Scriptures being written within the Church by some of its members for the benefit of all (or more precisely, within the society of the Catholic Church by Catholics and for Catholics), are likewise her exclusive property, of which she is the absolute Owner, Guardian, Trustee and Interpreter.

    Now, obviously, you have free will (although you deny that also as I recall, right?) to take advantage of unsolicited advice and repent. I hope you do as I never want to see any man choose Hell over Heaven but if you do not repent of your heresies Hell is what you will be choosing.

    Here is a link to some reliable exegesis, especially about The Gospels, and in there you will find the answer that can correct your heretical idea that Jesus is not God because, as you wrongly claim, He did not know the time for the end of the world.

    The reason I know you believe these things is because I routinely read you and you have a lot of valuable and useful information and your heresies and other errors can be overlooked.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  97. Bare knuckle fighting is very dangerous. The Human body is very frail and can be damaged very severely. A friend of mine got involved in a bar fight. He was picked up off a bar stool from behind and dropped to the floor. He got hit in the eye and had his cornea damaged. He was in bad shape after that event even though he weighed about 200 lbs and was a power lifter.

    I was sucker punched a few times but not knocked out and became involved in a fight for possibly my life.

    I only recommend fighting in self defense.

    I saw the movie many years ago but never saw any homo intents but I did think that it was silly and dangerous to fight just for fun.

  98. Corvinus says:
    @Mick Jagger gathers no Mosque

    I highly doubt Vox Day is coming back in an effort to refute you (or me). So visit his blog, as you say you do, and offer your commentary there.

  99. @The Germ Theory of Disease

    hitting each other for no good reason

    Each his own. A friend loaned me the DVD back then, and I watched alone. Wasn’t into it until the first punch. By the second or third punch, with dialog, I think I paused it and shouted in appreciation. IMO, that scene leaving the bar is among the best in cinema. It stated clearly something that had long been on my mind in the 90s.

    In my view, the movie is only about the detrimental permanent quest to shelter from the pain rain. That may make it the most politically relevant movie given our 2020 wakeup calls.

    • Agree: botazefa
  100. botazefa says:
    @Priss Factor

    Are we supposed to believe that the Norton character created an alter ego, and through his sheer nuttery managed to form not only a private army but an entire national network of warriors?

    Well, yes that is the disbelief we must suspend for this movie.

    I’m not as well read as you and don’t know who Mishima or Pasolini are, but I appreciate the insight into the gay community. Personally, I like guys – prefer to be around them – gay or straight I don’t care so long as they are men. This modern world seems to break male bonds and maybe that is why FC is so appealing – it’s a middle finger to GloboHomoMaternaliam.

    If you have only watched FC again I strongly recommend watching again. For me, it was a very different movie the second time around.

    I couldn’t get interested in Split. I’ll schedule a second attempt.

    I thought Identity pretty good, if a bit hoakey.

    I think the mistake you are making is classifying FC as a multiple personality movie. It is not that, IMHO.

  101. botazefa says:

    What we’re seeing worldwide is a war on White people.

    The US and British major media are definitey going out of their way to preach the dogma that white people hate non-white people.

    I think the idea that the whole world is at war with white people is bizarre, but I can see how you might see it that way.

  102. @schnellandine

    Well the movie definitely speaks to a lot of people, which does make it significant. It strikes an important chord with a lot of folks, so it’s definitely good that it exists.

    I’m probably just ticked off at it because the initiatory idea of a “fight club,” and its seeming necessity, is a very ingenious and intriguing idea, as you say. There’s a whole movie to be made just in that small arena. But then it swerves away from the compelling aspect, ducks its own question entirely, and gets into all that loopy nonsense about capitalism and blowing things up and trite Nietzschean bad-boy Better Living Through Pain silliness, and by the time we get to split personalities, which is the sappiest idea in the world, I was ready to start my own Fight Club and take it to Fincher’s house. I just think of what a much better movie it could have been if it had told one story instead of trying to tell eight.

    If you’ve never seen “Whiplash,” I highly recommend it. It’s a small-scale, very well acted story about the music world, and testing and pushing one’s self to achieve genius. It deals with similar themes to Fight Club without going over the cliff. A-plus.

    • Thanks: schnellandine
  103. Ray P says:
    @Priss Factor

    He’s the even gayer fantasy version of himself?

    All this talk of Adolf and his gay boyz and no one has raised the matter of human fat being rendered into soap as an allusion to the Big H?

  104. Gast says:

    I belong firmly in the camp of those who believe that “Fight Club” is a fantasy of a sado-masochistic degenerate homosexual who poses as a Nietzschean (I am not a great fan of Nietzsche btw).. Although I am interested how the terrorist angle is played out in this movie (one of the main purposes of Hollywood is prepare the masses for the psy-ops and false-flag-terror-events of the future), I never get that far. I remember I ended my last watching with the picture of the mangled face of an Asian member of the fight club.

    Since “Trevor Lynch” is the pen name of Greg Johnson who is well known of being a homosexual, I assume he is well aware of the homosexual subtext of “Fight Club”. His denial of the “gayness” (I refuse to acknowledge the annexing of a innocent English adjective with positive connotations by homosexuals) is probably just another big lie of which Johnson seems to be fond of (he once wrote a review of “Inglorious Basterds” in which he said that Tarantino was fond of the German soldiers who were portrayed as classy)

    Although I have been involved in a fist fight with some youthful alien invaders during my last visit in Vienna (luckily they were no member of a “fight club” of any kind), the concept of catharsis through fist fights, is completely alien to me. So I doubt that I will give “Fight Club” another chance.

    I write this comment to say something about the “philosophy” Greg Johnson likes to peddle. I mean the master-slave distinction, personal honor of maters, boredom through winning, the end of history etc. This is so wrong as something could be! Who are currently the masters of the world? Jews! Are they known to be able fighters for their personal honor? No! They are known for ignoring to be despised by everybody as long as they are winning in the long run. So why does peddle his personal “philosophy of history”. Because it is so wrong and deflects from the jews. This shilling for the jews is the main purpose of Johnson’s activity in “right-wing” circles. He is an infiltrator agent for the jews.

    • Agree: Fuerchtegott
  105. botazefa says:

    The defenses of Fight Club and this review show me again how queer the leadership of much of the ‘alt-right’ is.

    I wouldn’t know.

  106. @Jon Orton

    Only stupid petite bourgeois people believe that you have to read a book or watch a movie to know it sucks. It is the wisdom of the mediocrities. I can just see you raising your eyebrow to note the “ironies.” Like the conventional, middle-class, middle-brow, middle-everything you are. A person who thinks he’s being creative when all he’s doing is saying the same damn thing everybody else says.

    What, I have to read Stephen King to know he sucks? Of course not. Any truly intelligent person knows this. Any truly intelligent person knows this. Believe me. I know more than you do. You are a painful cipher. You really can’t understand anything important.

  107. @Corvinus

    I was banned there.

    Can’t imagine why….

    In any event, he called me a liar and I proved it is he who was lying when he denied he was an Arian – he prolly missed the homophone joke 🙂

    Ted Beale, Leader of The Arian Nation. That does have a nice ring to it

  108. @Gast

    I belong firmly in the camp of those who believe that “Fight Club” is a fantasy of a sado-masochistic degenerate homosexual who poses as a Nietzschean

    But then, even Nietzsche posed as a ‘Nietzschean’.

    The real Nietzsche was something of a weakling paralyzed by anxieties.

    The more truly manly Aryan intellectual was Carl Jung.

  109. Ray P says:

    One wonders how Fight Club and its author would’ve been received had Chuck’s previously written novel – Invisible Monsters – been accepted by a publisher first. There’s absolutely no doubt about its queer content since it has several transgender characters, drag queens and homosexuals and it too revolves around the mystery of identity.

  110. @Gast

    “the master-slave distinction, personal honor of maters, boredom through winning, the end of history etc. … Because it is so wrong and deflects from the jews. This shilling for the jews is the main purpose of Johnson’s activity in “right-wing” circles. He is an infiltrator agent for the jews.”

    Wow, so Hegel (the master-slave distinction, personal honor of ma[s]ters, boredom through winning, the end of history) was actually a “jew” agent all the time! The jew conspiracy does indeed have deep roots, and extends far beyond what anyone [other than you] could imagine. It’s insights like this that bring me to Ron Unz’ fine website.

    Let me return the favor by noting that this sinister conspiracy goes even further back: to Johnson’s main guru, the jew (and homo) Plato, !

    BTW, the application of your ideas to Christianity (a doctrine to distract us from the winning ideas of Judaism) may not please many others here, but persevere! I have your back!

    Together, we will be WINNING!

    • Replies: @Gast
    , @Gast
  111. Gast says:
    @Peter D. Bredon

    Genius, I called out a specific narrative cobbled together by Johnson with thoughts from Plato, Hegel, Fukuyama, Kojève (he also mentioned Baitaille, but I don’t know what he is referring to).

    This narrative is clearly wrong and I explained why. And I explained why Johnson uses this narrative (he does it all the time, not only here) to shill for the jews. The jews are clearly our masters and they clearly do not fit Johnson’s narrative which is blatantly wrong.

    Johnson’s narrative is far from original. It is largely borrowed from “neo-conservative” (recte: jew shill) Francis Fukuyama (surprisingly he has not mentioned him here, but he mentioned him elsewhere), whose conclusion leads the whole narrative ad aburdum: If you feel that we have reached an end of history, you might wake yourself up. Lots of historical stuff is happening right now.

    And one can certainly criticize Hegel without being sacrilegious. Schopenhauer thought that he was a complete fraud. And I was never impressed by this thinker as well, who starts out with very controversial suppositions and you should know: ex falso quod libet. I for one find his slave-master distinction far from self-evident, since it might be that the original masters were just more clever and devious from the beginning, not more able to fight for their personal honor. And probably there were various different relations between masters and slaves from the beginning of history (I never was a fan of stipulated original situations or original contracts, because it is all just speculation without significant evidence btw).

    And Plato’s section of the soul in three parts is not very self-evident as well. So one can criticize this part of Johnson’s narrative as well, although I didn’t do it.

    So your sarcasm falls very flat and you just exposed yourself as a half-wit.

  112. Anon[367] • Disclaimer says:

    Either in response, or by synchronicity, Tyler Durden over at ZeroHedge just posted some musings on Fight Club that are a breath of fresh air compared to the trollfest circle jerk of these comments. If millennials watch Fight Club and get this out of it, that “so gay” movie would do more for America than anyone commenting here has ever done, or will do. “Self-righteous failures” sounds like most of the people on display above.

    Many Americans suffer from a spiritual sickness, a singular brand of ennui only found in the most industrialized nations, where prosperity is spread among a vast middle class. White middle class Americans have no culture to center them and tether them to a community. Most of the ethnic whites lost these critical ties to “their heritage” when their parents and grandparents fled the cities in the aftermath of WWII. Adrift in the suburbs, jumbled together with thousands of other well-to-do strangers, they became despondent.

    Growing up, they lived lives that were planned by doting parents, who sheperded them from high school on to college, where the young adults of America go to “find themselves” in yet another layer of social conditioning masked as “education”.

    Like the Gen Xers who came before them, Millennials suffer from the same plight, only their sense of collective sense of entitlement and selfishness is more all-encompassing. Their parents appeased and coddled them to such an extreme degree that every minor setback in life is interpreted as some grand injustice, since they were never challenged, or pushed outside their comfort zone.

    Once they hit 25, they slowly start to realize that the dream career they had in mind – a sprawling Manhattan apartment, a good-paying job, perhaps as a gossip columnist at a widely read alternative newspaper – is simply beyond their grasp. They didn’t work hard enough, they didn’t have the smarts, the drive or the wisdom. But the notion that their failures are consequences of their own mistakes simply doesn’t compute; it’s not them – it’s the system. It’s capitalism, or racism or white supremacy.

    Twitter user @luinalaska, has some strikingly articulate thoughts:

    Some of you have done NOTHING with your life and you’re mad. You have a college degree & a smart phone with access to virtually *anything* and you can barely get out of bed in the morning while you spit on people who built a whole world with nothing but a horse, map, & axe.

    You’ve made nothing with access to everything. You’ve conquered nothing. Hell you can’t even conquer yourself. So go tear it all down. Scream into the void how unfair it all is. It’s not that you’ve wasted your short time here. Surely not.

    Don’t bother with your own legacy you’re busy shitting on the long dead who aren’t here to care. Go burn down every Starbucks. That’ll show them. Torch the Target. Tear down every monument. Deface every memorial. But what have you built? What do you leave behind?

    So take your benzos. Watch your porn. Get Uber to drop off your dinner. Buy an adult coloring book. Have sex with strangers to ease your crippling anxiety. It’s not you. It’s the system really. It isn’t fair. Go cancel someone. Dox someone. They deserve it. You’re the good guy.

    Don’t write an epic novel worth building a statue to remember you. Go troll seven year old problematic tweets ever on the hunt for the boogeymen. See now you’ve accomplished something. Cancel everyone. You’re a warrior now. A real hero.

    And lastly whatever you do never ever take even a moment to self reflect on your own failures. Never own them. Never take a hint of responsibility. Remember you’re just a helpless victim of circumstances beyond your control. This all means nothing. Its like you weren’t even here.

    • Agree: botazefa
    • Replies: @Gast
    , @Fuerchtegott
  113. Gast says:
    @Peter D. Bredon

    Post scriptum:

    I assumed you were sarcastic, but this assumption might be wrong. So forget my last sentence, if I misinterpreted you, and treat my comment just as an elaboration of my criticism of Johnson’s “philosophy of history”.

  114. Gast says:

    Yes, there are problems with the consumerist society. But “Fight Club” is not the first movie (let alone cultural artifact) to allude to these problems. And sado-masochistic homosexual behavior might not be the solution for these problems.

  115. Poco says:

    It’s weird. This cult of happiness. The powers that be cram it down everyone’s throat while making it harder and harder to attain for common folk. They’ll define what happiness is and by cracky that’s what you better think happiness is.

  116. @Anon

    Is there anything between being worthy of a statue and and a pos?
    Pretty childish.

  117. Vox Day is an interesting case.

    He’s obviously brighter than most; he has no patience with civnats or cucks.

    He seems to swallow the TGE fantasy re Trump–an understatement, he brings it up so often one almost suspects he’s in ‘TGE”s pay.

    He seems to be a QANON believer, or at least refrains from enlightening any of his fanboys who are so inclined.

    Another thing one notes is that on his blog, fully 98% (at least) of the comments are in COMPLETE agreement with VD’s take on any given topic. My experience is that such is most unlikely in the real world.

  118. @the_old_one

    Yes, his fans rapidly and rabidly agree with his personal opinions – such as The Trinity is B.S. – and they are quick to adopt the use of his neologisms. Nobody had anything to say when The Trumpslide he predicted wasn’t quite that during the last POTUS election but he is repeating his prediction for the Nov elections

    He thinks Trump is going to lower the boom and declare martial law etc etc etc

    If Trump is the savior of American why did he move to Milano?

  119. Trevor Lynch: “The Unabomber’s Manifesto spends a good deal of time critiquing Leftism …”

    That’s true, but it wasn’t the main point of the manifesto, which was a condemnation of technological civilization in general, and the anti-human future its continued development would inevitably bring to pass. In that regard, Ted Kaczynski seems to have been substantially influenced by the ideas of Jacques Ellul. The anti-leftism stuff was his own, original contribution.

    Since Kaczynski was against leftism, the natural assumption would be that he was a man of the political right, and perhaps a white racist as well. However, that’s probably wrong. Kaczynski sees technology as a negative, and which race is responsible for most of it? The white race, of course. Consequently, the manifesto, though explicitly silent on the race question, contains at least a tacit indictment of whites. Seeing no hope in politics, he calls not for a political revolution, but a revolution against the technological system itself.

    Fight Club(1999) was released four years after the manifesto was published, and appears to have derived, in a rather haphazard way, some themes from it.* It depicts the struggle of one man, Jack/Tyler Durden, against his own tendency to get sucked into consumerist culture, which in the final part of the movie morphs into an anarcho-primitivist battle against the technological system itself. The implausible premise is that such a struggle could attract an army of like-minded men who might actually succeed.

    If it’s true that movies reflect the dreaming of the collective mind of humanity, then Fight Club, like Twelve Monkeys(1995) offers yet another glimpse of the concern it has that some force might arise that would be capable of overthrowing the technological system. The thematic and strategic difference is that in the latter film, the system was overthrown by only one man, Dr. Peters, whereas the Jack/Tyler Durden character is able to recruit an entire army to aid him in his efforts, which he terms Project Mayhem. The army he forms retains a loosely hierarchical structure, with him at the top, but incorporates elements of Louis Beam’s “leaderless resistance” too.

    The relevance of this idea of overthrowing the technological system to those who would act to preserve the white race is touched on in my previous remarks here:

    * Ted Kaczynski stamped the initials “FC” into the end caps of his pipe bombs. This was short for “Freedom Club”.

    • Replies: @Fuerchtegott
  120. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Shouldn’t overlook that Ted differentiates between broadly two types of technology.
    So for example he isn’t against ice cream and refridgeration but against ice cream and refridgeration that creates dependencies.

  121. Watch the movie, I’m kinda expert on those, ignore the comments.

    Btw I’ve had mister johnson figured as a spook, same as our fair publisher.

    Perhaps they’re our spooks.

  122. My god, I have rarely seen such a bunch of posing, faggoty, chest beating wankers as some of those in this comments section.

    Arrgh, its gay, get it away from me that stupid intellectual cultural crap, its gets in the way of me being a macho man…

    Culture is the thing that divides man from animal (not wolf if that’s what your thinking – more a bovine which is startled at a loud noise). Analysis from a particular sub-cultural perspective is essential for framing a general piece of culture to those of a particular world view, either criticizing it as negative or integrating it as positive element.

    Now to better address the place of those bitching macho men a slight tangent if you will allow me. Who are the most effective cultural fighters in America today. Nerds.

    Those angry obsessive nerds who have fought a ferocious rearguard against poz from GamerGate to the currently running Fandom Menace. Half of them are probably overweight neckbeards (and no, none of this self referential by the way – I don’t care that much about this subculture, I just like to see actually spirited fighters for once) yet they don’t give up and cave when under attack unlike sports stars, leading men, wrestlers and every other public figure supposedly possessing machismo.

    Because they give the damn about something, and aren’t afraid to obsess over every detail of it to one another, and they will fight for it because they recognise it is ‘theirs’.

    And quite unbelievably they are getting to the point of intimidating arrogant behemoths like Disney, CBS or Sony.

    That’s impressive, rather than try to market some shoddy, pretend comics to an moronic echo chamber for your personal gain. Hint Hint.

    So maybe all those posturing bitches out there can find something to give a damn about so they can be actual thinking fighters for or against something, rather than trying to prove they’re too cool for school and all that gay culture crap.

    Not likely I think.

    • Disagree: Corvinus
  123. Gast says:

    Ah, some get triggered, when this cooperation of a degenerate homosexual and a jew is not duly worshipped. It must be cultural nihilist “macho men” who are attacking this piece of high culture. But thank God, “angry obsessive nerds” are fighting back, and make “Disney, CBS or Sony” tremble.

    Funny stuff…

  124. @Gast

    No, I don’t care what you think of Fight Club.

    Hate it, love it, idolize it, satanize it. It was a film meant to be controversial.

    But please don’t knock them Mr Gast. These Nerds” (and again I have had nothing personally to do with them, I just admire that fight in the face of adversity) have had so much more more effect than all the loud nothings.

    The power to compel companies (or at least burn them) means something and is Power, and something more real than a thousand posings.

    But if you have something of true significance. If you faced out with Wyatt Earp and Doc Holiday by your side and showed what a real man and his culture is, please tell me and perhaps I may still witness true manliness and I may at last be able to bow my face to you.

  125. Alden says:
    @Pincher Martin

    I loved fight club. Except for the woman character. She wasn’t necessary. Fight club appealed to my rebellious nature. Loved the condo burning. A studs and Sheetrock cubicle isn’t a home.

    It was a take this job and shove it fantasy.

  126. jsolbakken says: • Website

    Teddy Spaghetti may have a 150 IQ, but, he is still an idiot who gets things wrong due to his arrogant pigheaded stubborn dedication to his biases.

    Fight Club has gayness in it, and confronts gaynesses as issues, but, that does not make it “gay” in the sense that it can be dismissed by normal people as nothing more than a pornographic celebration of gayness, such as a gay parade can be dismissed.

    The gayness in Fight Club is actually in some ways unavoidable because of the subject matter. Gayness has intruded on the subject of masculinity in our post modern world and there’s no point in denying it or lying about it.

    And even in terms of long term historical perspective some of the gayness in Fight Club is similar to the gayness of the Spartan warriors. Their gayness was nothing like the gayness of our post modern Gay Parades with their swishy faggoty drag queens and other effeminate freaks of nature mincing down the street.

    I used to like Teddy Spaghetti, but now, not so much, he’s toofa king stupid and I think he does the cause of Nationalism very little good because he makes enemies for no damn good reason.

  127. jsolbakken says: • Website

    Hey, Teddy Spaghetti, you’re a bit oversensitive about the gay thing it seems.

  128. @VD

    Interesting to note that Teddy’s application for a trademark on his Fenris Wolf, Unlimited property “Naked Combat” was terminated in March of 1996–five months before the publication of Chuck Palahniuk’s book. Naked Combat, an interesting concept, curious to know what it could have involved.
    Despite Teddy’s liberal use of eyeliner and lipstick, Palahniuk managed to surpass him in flamboyance, fame, and success. Sad to see the bitterness is holding strong to this very day.
    There is clearly a well established pattern of defaming those Teddy perceives as inferior, an obsession born out in books, videos, and numerous blog posts devoted to ankle biting.

  129. I considered Fight Club and Tyler and his alter-ego character to represent the Federal Reserve and Wall Street. The criminal dark side element of the Federal Reserve and Wall Street in everything illegal, ranging from narco-trafficking to human trafficking, war, terrorism, bribery, etc., not to mention that Tyler makes SOAP, representing money laundering, or, S hard O P, STANDARD Operating Procedure, of the Rockefellers, war and oil, war always being the reset at the end of each economic cycle that always results in economic destruction as the result of compounded interest. At the end, Tyler and Marla are standing over New York city totally destroyed. I doubt that it is a coincidence that the World Trade Towers were destroyed the year following the movie’s release.

    It is the ultimate “great replacement”, a system that demands that members destroy themselves after attaining any degree of success, leaving the most corrupt element in control.

    I was thinking about the flag of the Isle of Mann, which has an extremely high per-capita income, and realized that the Triskelta, is what they, as well as European societies obviously use, considering the 99% to be temporary members of society that exist strictly for the purpose of serving the 1% in their fucked up world view.

    Also that portfolio fund managers say that they “run money”, as in once they have accumulated anything, they try to keep it moving in order to prevent it from establishing roots and competing with existing power-brokers, who are incapable of competing with them, since the power-brokers are 100% corrupt. The only thing that they are capable of doing is eliminating competition that threatens to expose their sadistic, gluttonous, predation over the entire population.

    They literally would want to hide their faces, even going to such lengths as wearing surgical masks in public, or preventing the rest of society from socializing, in order to prevent the truth about the power-brokers corruption and illegitimacy from going viral through out society.

  130. diconez says:

    divine providence is real, otherwise i’d have never seen fight club… or tyler durden would have come up with a second stage to the plan. the ending is anticlimactic precisely because of that, they just larp off into anarchists without a cause, and everyman survives shooting his own self? that must have been divine providence too, which strikes precisely when man cannot.

    also, marla was a sort of “damsel saves him through her love” kind of character, as everyman after shooting tyler finally assumes the masculinity he was repressing as an alterego, and can take and perhaps also save marla as himself. she seemed incredibly annoying and irredeemable otherwise, but then again that was the point – plus that actress seemed like a legit amazing f*ck.

    9.5/10, great movie if incomplete in its conclusion. we’re still waiting for such a jubilee, although a better second step will have to be come up with – there aren’t nearly enough elk…

  131. @Jake

    This necessary history is not known to the descendants of Christendom because it is outside the Old Testament (Torah), this “salvation by blood, genes” having arisen as oral tradition before Jesus walked as man then being memorialized as the Talmud hundreds of years after the New Testament was written:

    Jews become perverse Hebrews following the Babylonian Exile, when their religion becomes the world’s first ‘racist’ religion. No later than 400 BC, they began developing a theology of salvation by blood, by genes. That led immediately to them seeing all non-Jews as inferior people who are damned by their blood, their genes. That led to them declaring the Jewish Race to be God on earth.

    That is why Jesus the Christ called them sons of Satan – perverted theology.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Trevor Lynch Comments via RSS
How America was neoconned into World War IV
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism